[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Bring civilization to them by letting them work in our fields and clean our hotel rooms. Of course, we don't need to pay them, the brutes wouldn't know what to do with money; and we should keep them locked up "for their own protection". Plus, well, they aren't seemly so they shouldn't be allowed in public society.

We should come up with a word for them... how about "slaves"?

Asians in the early development of America?

[Nate]

It would only be a "score for evolution" if you're working on the false presumption that creationism excludes tool-making animals. God could have made animals any way He damned well felt like making them, including with the ability to fashion weapons to hunt for food.

Sure, from an evolutionist standpoint, the connection between chimps fashioning weapons to hunt for food and "prehistoric man" fashioning weapons to hunt for food is pretty strong evidence for their theory, but it's not any kind of proof of evolution or disproof of creationism. We used to think that people were the only "smart" (for lack of a better word) animals on earth until we found out how "smart" dolphins, chimps, dogs, etc really were. That didn't disprove creationism.

Who knows? Maybe someday we'll find out that animals philosophize and perform calculus too. That still won't disprove creationism, because [Biblical] creationism makes no claims that animals can't, in fact, do those things. All we, as creationists, say is that God created man and created animals and that God gave man dominion over animals. In fact, many of the animals in the Bible are given remarkably "human" traits (the ability to be crafty, in the case of the serpent; the ability to reason [the only thing God seems to have given the donkey is the ability to "speak its mind"], in the case of Balaam's ass; etc).

A strict reading of Genesis and the creation account gives no impression whatsoever of the stereotypical "man is a rational animal and the only one, at that" picture that is painted by evolutionists of creationists (that account is only attributed to creationists on the basis of years of thousand-year old systematic theologizing before the discovery of the immense mental capacity of many animals). Biblical creationism does not shudder at discoveries such as these chimps, but instead uses them as even further basis to rejoice in the immense complexity and wonder of God's creation.

[JerryLove]

Asians in the early development of America?

It was an amalgamation of any number of peoples opressed by any numbers of others. From the Romans and their view of "barbarians" through the conquistidors bringing Christ at the point of a gun (we killed off their leader and destryed their barbaric society to bring them civilization) to the Japanese (we considered them uncivilized) to the black slaves. Hundreds of times to hundreds of peoples.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Japanese (we considered them uncivilized)

Don't forget how the Japanese likewise treated the Utari (Ainu).

We already train primates to do things. If we could easily teach them to pick fruit or tobacco or clean toilets (yes, yes, someone will make an SNL reference), I'm sure folks would jump at the chance.

[relient nelson]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Bring civilization to them by letting them work in our fields and clean our hotel rooms. Of course, we don't need to pay them, the brutes wouldn't know what to do with money; and we should keep them locked up "for their own protection". Plus, well, they aren't seemly so they shouldn't be allowed in public society.

We should come up with a word for them... how about "slaves"?

Brings to mind, "Planet of the Apes" but not the remake, cause the remake sucked...

[shakeybill]

Originally Posted by Nate

It would only be a "score for evolution" if you're working on the false presumption that creationism excludes tool-making animals. God could have made animals any way He damned well felt like making them, including with the ability to fashion weapons to hunt for food.

Sure, from an evolutionist standpoint, the connection between chimps fashioning weapons to hunt for food and "prehistoric man" fashioning weapons to hunt for food is pretty strong evidence for their theory, but it's not any kind of proof of evolution or disproof of creationism. We used to think that people were the only "smart" (for lack of a better word) animals on earth until we found out how "smart" dolphins, chimps, dogs, etc really were. That didn't disprove creationism.

Who knows? Maybe someday we'll find out that animals philosophize and perform calculus too. That still won't disprove creationism, because [Biblical] creationism makes no claims that animals can't, in fact, do those things. All we, as creationists, say is that God created man and created animals and that God gave man dominion over animals. In fact, many of the animals in the Bible are given remarkably "human" traits (the ability to be crafty, in the case of the serpent; the ability to reason [the only thing God seems to have given the donkey is the ability to "speak its mind"], in the case of Balaam's ass; etc).

A strict reading of Genesis and the creation account gives no impression whatsoever of the stereotypical "man is a rational animal and the only one, at that" picture that is painted by evolutionists of creationists (that account is only attributed to creationists on the basis of years of thousand-year old systematic theologizing before the discovery of the immense mental capacity of many animals). Biblical creationism does not shudder at discoveries such as these chimps, but instead uses them as even further basis to rejoice in the immense complexity and wonder of God's creation.

Monkeys making and using simple tools is one thing but being made in God's image conveys much more than any non-human creature posseses: reason, conciousness, sprituality, abstract thought, on and on.

While I am not a literal creationist I am Christian and believe that we are in God's image because we share (finite) aspects of God's character.

I believe you are wrong and that man is the only rational creation of God although I may be proven wrong someday if the ET's, chimps, or dolphins take over. I'll even acknowledge that to you at that time if we are put in the same flying saucer or cage.

Regards, Bill

[JerryLove]

Monkeys making and using simple tools is one thing but being made in God's image conveys much more than any non-human creature posseses: reason, conciousness, sprituality, abstract thought, on and on.

There are several animals that have proven they have the ability to reason through problems, the ability to think in abstracts, are self-aware, have a moral compass (sense of right and wrong, fair and unfair) etc.

As to "spirituality", that's pretty hard to define, though there are animals (like elephants) known to venerate their dead.

I believe you are wrong and that man is the only rational creation of God although I may be proven wrong someday if the ET's, chimps, or dolphins take over. I'll even acknowledge that to you at that time if we are put in the same flying saucer or cage.

Speaking of which, many animals have a sense of humor. Surely that is the truest sign of intelligence

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

have a moral compass (sense of right and wrong, fair and unfair)

I have not heard this suggestion before... evidence?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

I have not heard this suggestion before... evidence?

I can't reasearch the cite from work, but I recall a study of Chimps and their reactions to negative behaviors (taking away their food or the like). First observationally, then experimentally, they made a distinction between "I don't like it, but it's fair" and "I don't like it and it's unfair", responding far less favorably to the latter.

It's pretty easy to watch chimps when they set out to commit murder and differentiate their behavior from when they set out to hunt. The emotional context from the chimps is entierly different.

[Jeremymcon]

Way to stay on topic. I agree. Humans are not the only creature to use tools and weapons. There are bird species that use cactus thorns to get grubs out of trees, and monkeys use stone tools - not surprising, and not detrimental to the creationist philosophy in the least.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Jeremymcon

Way to stay on topic. I agree. Humans are not the only creature to use tools and weapons. There are bird species that use cactus thorns to get grubs out of trees, and monkeys use stone tools - not surprising, and not detrimental to the creationist philosophy in the least.

Since the creationist "philosophy" is by definition not falsifiable and not based on any observations or evidence, I don't see how it would be.